linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] When to push bug fixes to mainline

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 17 Jul 2013 03:58:02 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
	"ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
	<ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] When to push bug fixes to mainline

On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 22:10 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:43:09PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 12:11 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > > People mark stable patches that way already today with a:
> > > 	Cc: stable <stable@...r.kernel.org> # delay for 3.12-rc4
> > > or some such wording.  I take those and don't apply them until the noted
> > > release happens, so you can do this if needed.
> > 
> > I guess the thing is, are stable patches prone to regressions. Do we
> > just do that for patches that we think are too complex and may cause
> > some harm. Of course, there's the question about having a clue about
> > what patches might cause harm or not.
> 
> We'd probably better switch the tag to be "# now" to imply that we don't
> want to delay them, and that by default those merged prior to rc4 are all
> postponed.

I think this might work.  I definitely agree that most fixes aren't
worth the risk of allowing into a stable release that quickly, so it's
the right default.

> I suspect that the switching could be mostly automated this way,
> avoiding to add burden to Greg :
> 
>   - if commit ID >= -rc4
>     move to immediate queue, it's a "critical" fix as per Linus' rules
> 
>   - if Cc: stable line has "now" at the end, move to immediate queue as
>     the maintainer takes this reponsibility ;
> 
>   - otherwise move to the next .2 queue.

I can't speak for Greg, but that seems reasonably easy to implement.
(Which I would have to do, as I was unable to reuse Greg's scripts.)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Humans are not rational beings; they are rationalising beings.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)